Libertarians and the Right-to-Life: A Minority
Opinion

by Tom Goonan

I believe that the Libertarian Party platform
position on abortion makes the Libertarian Party an unequivocal advocate
for liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but is most equivocal, even
hypocritical with regard to life. I believe that life, in the list of
these three rights, is preeminent, that is, superior when the rights
conflict. If a 1990s libertarian were asked to write the Declaration
of Independence, it would have come out as  that they are
invested by their existence with certain unalienable rights, that among
these are the pursuit of happiness, liberty, and life  I
believe that many outsiders see us this way  the party that comes
from east of Hedon.

The differences between pro-life and pro-choice
libertarians come down to three questions: What is life? When does it
begin? And, What is the role of the state in protecting it?

Libertarians will argue over just when a fetus
becomes an entity with a right to life. It seems pretty clear to most that
anyone that can cross over into post-partum is such an entity. But what
about fetuses in gestation? I believe that all suggestions about where in
the time continuum a bunch of cells, which are clearly organized to
proceed on a predictable course and outcome, cross the line to become a
rights-bearing entity are religious artifacts. The belief that anyone can
make this judgment accurately must be taken on faith. That puts it in the
realm of a religious decision. One rationale for a womans liberty
to choose is based on the fact that a poll of ten women on the subject of
when life begins would produce ten different answers. But, how would you
ever know whether any of them were right, which ones had destroyed life
and which hadnt?

I believe that life begins at conception, that is,
at the moment of fertilization. I believe this because it can be
scientifically demonstrated that life is a developmental process that
proceeds from fertilization to birth, being almost totally predictable at
any point in time. Since we are talking about life, and not
some religious notion of humanness, I believe that there is
ample scientific justification for establishing the start of life at
conception. Because I believe this, I have no problem with the criticism
of the partial birth abortion initiative being too vague to the point that
it would outlaw all abortions. I wouldnt mind if it did, even
prohibiting morning after pills.

I support a womans right to pursue happiness
however and with whomever she pleases. I support a womans right to
the liberty of choice about whether or not to prevent the consequences of
happiness, that is, her right to choose conception control. I do not
support a womans actions to avoid the consequences of her own
choices when it involves the destruction of life. When life conflicts with
life, that is, when there is a question of who dies, then this is an
entirely different question. Right-to-life fundamentalists seek a
constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions. This is entirely
unnecessary, because it clearly states in Amendment 5 of the US
Constitution  no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law.. All that is needed
is a statutory definition of person, which should be pretty simple if we
exclude religious notions and go with the science. The role of the state
then would be to adjudicate conflicts where the mother and the fetus
cannot survive alive together, and to facilitate the protection of
abandoned children and/or contracted child dispositions.

Presently, one of the most dangerous places for life
to exist on this planet is in a western womans womb. You have all
heard the statistics. Why do women want to be like Joe, Mao, Pol, and
Adolf? The majority of abortions, regardless of the excuses about health,
rape, incest, etc., are simply gratuitous consequence avoidance.

One principle that libertarians can adhere to is
that there is a relationship between action and consequence, that is,
responsibility. One of our fundamental ideas is that the bulk of our
problems are caused by governmental actions that tend to separate action
and consequence. This principle underlies our opposition to welfare,
unemployment benefits, single-payer health care and a long list of other
things. Yet, we are reluctant to hold women responsible for their
conception choices. To me this is an inconsistency.

All actions carry risk. It is another libertarian
principle that the unilateral transfer if risk to another is partial theft
of the risk-receivers life to the degree that the non-voluntary
acquired risk degrades that life. This is why we oppose the IMF as a
mechanism to unilaterally impose the risk of unsound investments by banks
on US taxpayers. The pursuit of happiness coupled with taking the liberty
to not use conception control bears the risk of generating a new life.
Destroying that life is a unilateral transfer of risk from the woman to
the fetus. In a political system, risk always devolves to the weak.
Libertarians should be championing a moral system that protects life
unambiguously. In the absence of taking the legitimate liberty of
conception control, it is not implausible to regard the fetus as an
invited guest. Most of us do not kill our invited guests unless we are
into arsenic and old lace.

So, what about the state making anti-abortion laws?
With the exception of the anarcho- libertarians, most other libertarians
are limited government types. We believe that the reason for being for the
state is to protect our unalienable rights, one of which is life. The
state makes all kinds of laws ostensibly to protect us from killers, and
it distinguishes different degrees of murder based on circumstances, and
we see this as a legitimate state activity. I believe that anti-abortion
laws are legitimate actions of the state in regard to preserving life, and
as stated above, life is worth preserving. Let the courts, through
precedent, establish the body of law where there is a conflict of rights
in abortion issues, but let the fetus right to life be recognized in
these proceedings.

Based on the ideas expressed above, lets look
at the working of the Libertarian Party platform and see whether there is
room for improvement.

WOMENS RIGHTS AND ABORTION

We hold that individual
rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex.
Acceptable.

We call for repeal of all
laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and
marriage or divorce laws which deny full rights of men and women.
Needs clarification, but is generally acceptable.

We oppose all laws likely to
impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen
tyranny through reverse discrimination. This is too vague to be
meaningful. Reason should inform anyone who thinks that there have to be
restrictions at the boundaries where rights conflict. Setting these
restrictions and adjudicating disputes about them are the constitutional
function of government.

Recognizing that abortion is
a very sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on
both sides, we believe the government should be kept entirely out of the
question, allowing all individuals to be guided by their own consciences.
This is only a tolerable cop-out, not a statement of principle.
However its de facto effect is to enshrine a privilege to commit murder
for a class of individuals, namely, pregnant women. Libertarians should
not be into creating class structures or in opposition to those
individuals (unborn) who cant vote or shoot back. Furthermore, this
is precisely an area for government involvement for the reasons stated
above.

We oppose all restrictions on
the sale of RU 486, and on the sale of menstruation-inducing contragestive
pills, which block fertilized eggs from attaching themselves to the womb.
Any post conception killing tool should be banned pending due process of
law.

We oppose legislation
restricting or subsidizing womens access to abortion or other
reproductive health services Restriction, pending due process
for the fetus, is necessary.

[We oppose legislation ]
requiring consent of the prospective father, waiting periods, and
mandatory indoctrination on fetal development  Rational
legislation that removes the pregnant womans privilege to kill would
place her in an equal position with the father with respect to the fetus
and its rights. Ergo, a fathers opinion would have equal weight in
the adjudication process. The working of due process would be a legitimate
waiting period. There may be a necessity to establish special courts, like
traffic courts, to handle these matters expeditiously, since time is of
the essence. Mandatory indoctrination would be unnecessary where the rules
are spelled out ahead of time.

[We oppose ] Medicaid or
any other taxpayer funding. Acceptable.

We also condemn
state-mandated abortions. Acceptable.

It is the right and
obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the
desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Cesarean births,
fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.
Acceptable. But, consider this: If a woman is obliged to
make positive decisions about hers and the fetus health, then
doesnt this imply an obligation to sustain the life of the fetus in
the first place? No one questions a womans right to choose whether,
when, or with whom to conceive a child. What is at issue here is a special
privilege to avoid the consequences of that choice. To grant such is
illiberal. We should be about protecting the right to life within a
context of due process administered by constitutional government.

Tom Goonan is a Christian, and an
active Libertarian here in Colorado.
You may e-mail him with
your comments.

Libertarians for
Life A sizeable minority of Libertarians believe that even the
most minimal state should outlaw abortion.